Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future

I think federal employees are like the glue that holds the government together, proceeding onward daily, sending out Social Security checks, fighting wildfires, enforcing federal laws, and unseen and unglamorous government activities as Administrations ebb and flow. I missed a mention of them in President Biden’s Inaugural Address. It seems like all the drama and coverage is for the elected officials, political appointees, donors, campaign volunteers, etc., and yet.. so THANK YOU ALL for keeping the government train on the tracks for the past four years, the next four, and so on hopefully forever.

I thought it might be interesting to look at ideas for the new administration from different groups. One is from the Society of American Foresters. I’d like to pull this out for discussion:

Support Forestry and Natural Resources Professionals

Active participation and engagement among federal employees in the professional society related to their scientific discipline benefits the employee, the agencies, and, ultimately, the public.

Professional societies, like SAF, provide opportunities for federal employees to maintain professional competencies through in-person and virtual continuing educational opportunities, access to scientific journals, and engagement with professionals working in different disciplines across the country. In addition, professional societies also provide federal employees ample opportunities to test and hone leadership skills and give back to communities through service projects.

Forestry is a dynamic and demanding science with many specialty disciplines. Maintaining the professional competencies of the federal workforce is necessary to assure sound, scientific principles are applied to resource management. Through engagement with professional societies, federal employees are better equipped to understand the challenges facing forest management professionals in state agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

Recommendations
• We urge the Biden Administration to not only remove current barriers to attending scientific conferences and meetings, but also encourage and empower employees to actively participate in their professional societies.

• In particular, the Secretary of Agriculture should review the meetings management system to evaluate whether this policy is meeting its intended purpose. We recommend exploring a new system where conferences could apply for certified status with the Department, which would reduce the burdens of evaluations and allow employees to plan ahead and avoid paying premiums for last-minute travel and conference fees.

It seems to me that “using the best science” involves training folks working on the ground and making it important for them to keep abreast of the latest findings. Perhaps equally important is the feedback that practitioners give to researchers in terms of ground-truthing their findings. I’d say at the interface between researchers and practitioners is where the “science” rubber meets the proverbial road.

Perhaps we’ll have more virtual conferences and webinars, so that will help. Certainly all of society has had to adapt and we may never go back to in-person meetings the same way. But even if conferences cost less, they still will cost. And if we look at science agencies, being involved in science societies is usually encouraged. So I would agree that the Biden Administration should come out with not only the words supporting involvement, but also work with the natural resource professional societies and others to figure out what the barriers are and take steps to remove them.

Sometimes, at least in the past, weird things happened. Once I was told I couldn’t give an invited talk at an SAF meeting even if I took annual leave to do so, because of liability. Hopefully, those kinds of restrictions, which can put a damper on the most enthusiastic professional, have retreated into the mists of time.

I asked former Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson for his memory of the transition to the Clinton Administration, as previously discussed here, and his own views on the role of the Chief.

The Chief’s Job

First, maybe it would be helpful to clarify the nature of the Chief’s job. The Chief is the only FS employee who has a political boss, who in turn represents the Administration. The Under Secretary of USDA overseeing the FS is expected by the Administration to see that the FS is responsive and sensitive to the Administration’s philosophy, policies, and priorities in the management of the FS. The Chief is normally a career member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) with its own set of rules and procedures. Senior Executives have the same protection against being fired as other career employees. However, the big difference is that Senior Executives may be reassigned to any other SES position pretty much at the discretion of their boss with the concurrence of the Secretary. In my case, I was reassigned to a SES position in the Department of Interior with advance agreement that I would turn the offer down and opt for early retirement. I stayed on at USDA for a couple of months to wind up my work as Chair of the USDA-1890 Black Land Grant Universities Task Force.

I was always supportive of Jack Ward Thomas coming in as my successor and took no action to make it difficult for him as the incoming Chief. Chief Peterson did object to JWT for not being in the SES and was quite vocal about it. However, it was not an issue with me and I said so on occasion. I think the Forest Supervisor’s letter was probably prompted by Chief Peterson’s concerns. JWT was a world-class scientist and was probably the most knowledgeable person about ecosystem management and Spotted Owls at that time. Jack and I had known each other for several years going back to my time in R-6. At the height of Spotted Owl controversy, I asked Jack to lead a group of scientists to try to figure out how the FS could best deal with the issue. I had to personally persuade Jack that he was the best person to take on the job. He kept saying to me that “I’m an elk guy, not a Spotted Owl expert”. Further complicating the situation was that Jack wife was being treated for cancer. In the end, Jack agreed but neither of us knew that decision would eventually lead to him being the next Chief. The work of this group of scientists greatly expanded the FS knowledge and understanding of how the survival of endangered species is dependent on healthy ecosystems and protection of critical habitat requirements.

The Spotted Owl situation was one of the most controversial issues ever faced by the FS, to the point that both President Bush and Clinton got directly involved. I was trying to change the management of the NF’s to better protect the Spotted Owl, but keep some lower sustainable level of timber sale program going in R-5 and R-6. The Bush Administration thought that I was being too protective of the owl and too supportive of the Thomas Report recommendations and not concerned enough about the timber sale program. At the request of the Department of Interior, the Bush Administration even activated the God’s Squad to exempt the Spotted owl from the requirements of ESA. Fortunately, the Secretary of Agriculture voted against the proposal. I came very close to being reassigned under the Bush Administration for being too concerned about the Spotted Owl. Then overnight, there was a change in Administration and I suddenly was too protective of the timber sale program and was not supportive enough of Spotted Owl. There simply was no easy solution to the Spotted Owl issue and I got caught up in a sudden change in philosophy and policies by changing Administrations. The Clinton Administration decided to put the most knowledgeable person with a scientific background, JWT, into the Chief’s job to see if he could bring about a reasonable solution. Jack was likely the only FS employee that would have been acceptable to the new Administration and may have saved the FS from having a “real political Chief”!

As far as I am concerned, things worked out as they are supposed to in Government. The Administration has the right to choose who they want as Chief. Fortunately so far, all Chiefs have been professionals with a strong background in land and resource management. All Chiefs go into the job knowing that they may be reassigned at any time when their political bosses would rather have someone else in the job that is more in line with their thinking.

I also asked former Chief Robertson “how did you convince the Secretary of Agriculture not to go along with the idea of a God Squad?” He answered “It was a combined effort by everyone at USDA with OGC playing a vital role in the final decision.” The Office of General Counsel usually has one or more political appointees and many career folks, and are always involved in any big decisions but their role often tends to be behind the scenes.

Thanks to Rebecca Watson for this one..

“Christiansen appears safe in the position, former Forest Service officials and policy insiders say, if the Biden team determines she can deliver on the incoming administration’s increased commitment to climate action and decreased emphasis on timber harvesting.”

Just for the record, if you use Headwaters’ handy interactive map and graphs of timber volumes.. they look remarkably invariant to Administrations. I’d think that was because Congress gives the FS bucks to do it. Plus there’s the desire of many states (including the politically influential California) to increase funding for fuel treatments and increase the ability for the wood to be used (and paid for). And, of course, Bonnie and others know all that. So I’d guess that “decreasing emphasis on timber harvesting” might be more nuanced than reported here.

Other Forest Service officials Bonnie served with include Deputy Chief Chris French; Associate Deputy Chief Christine Dawe, who ran timber programs during the Obama administration; and Glenn Casamassa, who helped write the agency’s planning rule in 2012 and is now regional forester in Region 6, covering the Pacific Northwest. The undersecretary for natural resources and environment, Jim Hubbard, was deputy chief for state and private forestry under Bonnie, but as a political appointee now, Hubbard wouldn’t be expected to remain.

Bonnie “can’t help but notice a strong continuity in staffing on the team,” said a forest industry source with relationships inside the agency.

….

The Forest Service chief works most closely with the undersecretary for natural resources and environment. It’s a critical relationship and a delicate one to keep untarnished by politics, said Dale Bosworth, former chief from 2001 to 2007. During his term, he said, the relationship amounted to, “I don’t screw with politics, and you don’t screw with policy.”

Sometimes the line blurs, Furnish said. Prior to the Clinton administration, the agency took pride in its leaders’ surviving the turnover of administrations, he said. But in 1993, the Clinton administration fired agency Chief F. Dale Robertson and brought on Jack Ward Thomas, a wildlife biologist who had written on protecting the northern spotted owl and wasn’t a career government employee.

The appointment was a “bloody coup,” said Furnish, who retired in 2016 after a 34-year career with the Forest Service.

Former officials and lobbyists who worked with the Forest Service recall Thomas’ tenure as a lesson in what happens when politics creep into decisions on Forest Service leadership. In 1994, Republicans gained control of the House, and Thomas — who had kept on top Forest Service managers from the prior administration — became torn between newly influential timber interests and environmental groups, both of which turned against him.

No, Thomas was absolutely a career government employee. He worked as a research scientist and had not been to SES training nor certified, but had a lengthy and impressive career IN THE FOREST SERVICE. I’m a former WO drone who got to see Thomas operate during this period. My interpretation would be that he had legitimate policy disagreements with the Undersecretary and his allies, probably based on his real world experience. I can’t see him as being “torn,” I can see him picking the position in each case he thought to be correct. But that’s just me.. who else was there at the time?

Also Jim retired in 2002, I thought. Maybe he can chime in here.

I found this a little creepy..

Agency officials who embraced the Trump administration’s change and helped craft it may find themselves out of step with the incoming USDA leadership. That might include the regional forester for Region 10 in Alaska, Dave Schmid, Stahl said in a post on the forestpolicypub.com blog and in his email to E&E News.

While I appreciate the nod to TSW (albeit not by name, sigh) I’d have to disagree with Andy. I don’t know how you measure “embracing” , but those who “helped craft it”.. really? So those who applied for a detail.. or maybe those requested by name, who said yes. I feel that feds should be free to carry out orders from any color of politicals without being monitored by the Enthusiasm Police for potential future punishment.

It would have been nice, perhaps, to have interviewed someone from NAFSR.

One of the challenges that the Forest Service faces is the loss of experience and talent due to retirements. Many retirees would like to work and contribute in their area of expertise, but just didn’t want to work full-time and possibly have all the responsibilities and annoyances of full time employment. The ACES program allows hiring of those 55+ and is not limited to FS retirees. Please forward this link folks you know who might be interested.

Putting the Power of Experience to Work!

In 2018, the Forest Service received authority, by way of the 2018 Farm Bill, that gives line officers a new tool for accomplishing work. The Forest Service Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) Program provides the opportunity for experienced personnel, age 55 and older, to assist with conservation-related programs executed on or directly impacting
National Forest System land. ACES allows the Forest Service to use the services of 55+ individuals with a process that is simple, efficient, and promptly executed. These individuals do not have to be federal retirees; rather anybody 55+ who is qualified to do the work.

The agency’s objective in implementing the ACES program is to expand capacity to complete conservation work, by filling employment gaps, mentoring and training less experienced agency employees and to complete “short term” surge work. The Forest Service administers the ACES Program through Master Agreements with two non-profit partners, National Older Worker Career Center and Senior Service America, Inc. The ACES program was piloted in 2017, based largely off the ACES program that was already being utilized by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. The pilot was focused solely in Forest Management and had an initial investment of $1M provided by the Washington Office to jump-start program utilization.

Based on the success of the pilot program, the program was expanded in early 2018, with the signing of a new five-year master agreement that allows the expansion of ACES to all eligible program areas. This expansion enables broader program utilization, providing additional means to expand Agency capacity in critical program areas. To date, 80 supplemental project agreements have been executed by the WO, Job Corps, Research Stations, Forest Products Lab, and Regional, Forest and District units across the nation. ACES enrollees are geographically spread across 17 states and over 25 National Forests and Grasslands. Approximately $9M under the national implementation effort has been obligated to ACES agreements for nearly 200 program enrollees.
ACES enrollees work to support a variety of Forest Service programs, including Forest Management, Engineering, Geology, Lands, Hydrology, Archeology, Recreation, Special Uses, Range Conservation, Research Science, Forest Planning, and Fire management. Currently in Region 6 there are 30 enrollees across most forests, research stations and the Regional Office. The jobs include timber sale administrators, land surveyors, lands and realty, research scientist, fire program specialist, engineers and engineering technicians, frontline workers, environmental coordinators and silviculture.

Are you interested in exploring these jobs? Or do you know others who would be great fits? To find more information on the ACES Program, please visit https://www.fs.fed.us/working-with-us/aces-program. Or contact Becki Lockett Heath who is working for NOWCC as a Program Consultant, for the Forest Service ACES Program at [email protected] (NOTE TO READERS- I’ve corrected the email).

NAFSR sent this out about specifically BAER help:

With the current unprecedented fire season creating the needs for additional capacity in post-fire emergency assessments and implementation, there is a need for interested qualified individuals to assist.

The BAER program calls upon retirees frequently through the Administratively Determined (AD) Play Plan for Emergency Workers in accordance with the Interagency Incident Business Management Handbook (PMS902).

Here’s a link to the document that explains the basic steps to the AD process.

Though local units must sponsor retirees through AD sign-up, we are asking folks who have the appropriate skill sets in soils, hydrology, engineering, and interagency/public affairs that are not already in the system to reach out to the National BAER Program Lead, Cara Farr ([email protected]) with their background and experience, so that she can facilitate identifying the best approach to getting them into the system.

With COVID concerns this season, many assessments are being completed using virtual tools and technologies opening up alternative pathways for involvement.

Any retirees that would be willing to assist in person or virtual would be welcome and encouraged to reach out to the National BAER Program Lead to determine next steps.

I’m posting this note from Jim Furnish separately from our previous discussion on the topic, as I appreciate his ability to get the information from the Chief directly, and I think it’s important.  We will hear many more bad things, no doubt, between now and November. I doubt that it will change anyone’s mind about who to vote for, but plenty of $ will be spent.  I think it’s important to try to figure out what’s really happening, though. Again, many thanks to Jim and to Chief Christiansen for answering him!

From Jim,

After speaking with an RF and a For Supv I gambled and sent a direct email to Chief Thursday eve about 6:30 pm EDT. She called me immediately!! Yes, I remain surprised… but grateful!

We had a good discussion. Here’s what I know — Milwaukee job was just filled, and 3 other RF jobs are or soon will be vacant (Denver, Albq, Ogden). Chief did not specify how many, but suggested that others plan to retire soon. Advertising those only would make sitting RFs lame ducks pending retirement. Thus the decision to advertise all to create a pool to fill jobs quickly and seamlessly — might involve transfers, promotions, bring in hires from outside FS, etc. Chief Christiansen was strong in stating there is NO ulterior plan to sack a bunch of RFs, and there is NO NEXUS between jobs and Perdue letter. I believe her.

We discussed Perdue letter and I thought it should have come 2 years ago, not now. Too little, too late, almost laughable in effort to “make a difference”. She said Sonny has his way of doing things – he is guilty of ignoring or not understanding role that RFs play in delivering the goods, and is playing catch up. Timing is woeful.

I leave the issue believing the optics are awful, but innocuous with explanation.

Thanks again to Jim and to the Chief. Maybe we could hold off on assuming the worst before we run our own traplines.. say until November???

Patrick McKay raised the question of how much latitude folks in the District Ranger position have and whether they have too much/too little, and whether their personal proclivities might have an influence on their decisions. I’ll start out by saying that land management decisions can have a great deal of latitude that is within law and policy. The decentralized culture of the Forest Service (and other organizations) start with the assumption that the line officer closest to the ground knows best. I’m calling this post “the cult of the line officer” in the sense of possibly excessive devotion, not that I necessarily think that it is excessive, but to draw attention to how different people in the Forest Service think about it.

I am not an expert on Forest Service culture and it seems to me that districts, forests and regions have different cultures. So I am just going to throw my own experiences out there, and I hope that retirees with different background through space and time will tell their stories. I’m going to assume that we are starting from scratch here, even though I know that most TSW folks have a working knowledge of how all this works.

We discussed the topic previously here about a year ago. In this post, I’d like to focus on the question of who decides ultimately and how the interactions among Rangers, Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters work in practice.
(There are cases where the WO gets involved in projects, but those are relatively rare).

I’ll start with my experience with the concept of the Line Officer. That is the person who makes the decision. The rest of the people are staff. The Forest Service is a line and staff organization. You can read about them in any business reference, e.g., here. In my logical view, at least back in the day, there was a bit of mystique about the position of line officer. It was about managing people, but not entirely about managing people. It was about dealing with externals “well” (keeping “containment” so decisions and activities did not result in angry phone calls to the next level), and there was a kind of mystical connection to the chunk of land (we discussed that in the previous post and comments). They are also the people who have to notify others if there has been an accident… there’s almost a feeling that they are more responsible, and have more gravitas than staff folks. This may come from the military, and certainly there were many veterans in the Forest Service in the 80’s, as there are today. I’m hoping people with line experience will step in here.

In my own experience (both in DC and Region 2, where I was in a position to observe), it was very bad karma to overrule the level below you. When I was in DC, for example, in our staff’s judgement, a Region 5 forest was doing CE abuse- which could, as a result of random judge’s decisions, lose the CE for everyone. Why didn’t the RF stop it before it hit DC (the NEPA staff in the Region thought the same)? I guess because there is only so much overruling you can do of the next level down, and perhaps he was keeping his powder dry. He also knew that if it was too bad, DC would step in (as we did) and he wouldn’t have to be the bad guy (small p political theater).

Two more stories. A Forest Supervisor overruled a Ranger on a decision, and the Ranger was so incensed that he called the Deputy Regional Forester to complain about it. The DRF was kind of the next level of line officer above the Supe (his boss), (kind of, because technically the Supes work directly for the Regional Forester) . I thought that this was uncool (your don’t go above your boss’s head, unless it’s very extreme in some way) but the DRF felt that he was providing needed buffering for this Forest kerfufle, and he thought that’s just the way the Ranger was, still a good Ranger, generally. So you’re not supposed to complain to the person above your boss, but some people do and get away with it. Mysterious indeed.

Another story is that a Forest Supervisor and his staff were moving toward a decision on a particular project and the Regional Forester decided to overrule him (it was a proponent-driven project, and the surrounding community was not in agreement on the project). This caused much consternation to the Forest and the Forest Supervisor.. I remember saying to the Supervisor, “but doesn’t the RF get to decide? He’s our boss (and as a line officer, perhaps, just as much in charge of the Region as you are of the Forest.” But that was the cultural divide of being line (him) versus not (me). Line gets to make decisions and staff advises. I was staff, so submission was always the best posture (except for extreme conditions), but line to line is more complicated.

I’m hoping that some folks on TSW will share their own experiences.